# C_2019312EN.01000801.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/8

---

Appeal brought on 23 July 2019 by Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux, Harz-Metall GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 23 May 2019 in Case T-222/17: Recylex e.a. v Commission

(Case C-563/19 P)

(2019/C 312/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Recylex SA, Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux, Harz-Metall GmbH (represented by: M. Wellinger, avocat, S. Reinart and K. Bongs, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 in Case T-222/17 in so far as it upholds the fine imposed on the appellants by the Contested Decision (1) and orders the appellants to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 in Case T-222/17 in so far as it upholds the fine imposed on the appellants by the Contested Decision (1) and orders the appellants to pay the costs;

| — | annul the Contested Decision in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 26 739 000 on the appellants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Contested Decision in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 26 739 000 on the appellants;

| — | reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the appellants to EUR 5 877 732 on the basis of all three pleas; or at least to EUR 17 679 141 on the basis of the first plea only, to EUR 13 305 478 on the basis of the second plea only, to EUR 19 099 565 on the basis of the third plea only, to EUR 8 228 824 on the basis of the first and second pleas, to EUR 12 627 958 on the basis of the first and the third pleas, or to EUR 9 503 913 on the basis of the second and the third pleas; and |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the appellants to EUR 5 877 732 on the basis of all three pleas; or at least to EUR 17 679 141 on the basis of the first plea only, to EUR 13 305 478 on the basis of the second plea only, to EUR 19 099 565 on the basis of the third plea only, to EUR 8 228 824 on the basis of the first and second pleas, to EUR 12 627 958 on the basis of the first and the third pleas, or to EUR 9 503 913 on the basis of the second and the third pleas; and

| — | order the Commission to bear all the costs of these proceedings, including the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear all the costs of these proceedings, including the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1) | The contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law, first, because its reasoning is incoherent and unclear as regards the legal test applicable for the grant of partial immunity and, second, because, when applying a legal test, the contested judgment manifestly distorted the evidence and disregarded the rules on the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law, first, because its reasoning is incoherent and unclear as regards the legal test applicable for the grant of partial immunity and, second, because, when applying a legal test, the contested judgment manifestly distorted the evidence and disregarded the rules on the burden of proof.

| 2) | The contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law because it misconstrued and incorrectly applied the rules on partial immunity pursuant to the third paragraph of point 26 of the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law because it misconstrued and incorrectly applied the rules on partial immunity pursuant to the third paragraph of point 26 of the 2006 Leniency Notice.

| 3) | The contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law in its application of Section III of the 2006 Leniency Notice when holding that an undertaking which is second to provide evidence of significant added value cannot take the place of the first undertaking to have provided such evidence but which does not meet the conditions to qualify for a reduction of its fine. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law in its application of Section III of the 2006 Leniency Notice when holding that an undertaking which is second to provide evidence of significant added value cannot take the place of the first undertaking to have provided such evidence but which does not meet the conditions to qualify for a reduction of its fine.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 8 February 2017 (C(2017) 900 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling).

---